Judith Curry: On Antarctic sea ice, Climategate and skeptics

It’s been an interesting year for climate scientist Judith Curry, who after Climategate split with most of her peers and called for reform in the climate science community. She did this most publicly via a letter published by Climate Audit, a noted skeptic web site. Curry called for more transparency in climate research.

Curry

Since that time progressive climate sites have begun to increasingly attack Curry (see here and here, for example).

But it’s difficult to paint Curry as a skeptic, especially when considering her scholarly work, the most recent of which was published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (see abstract). It delves into the question of why the Antarctic sea ice hasn’t been melting, and builds upon the consensus climate view.

Given the new paper I thought it a good time to speak with Curry about the last year. Here’s a transcript of our discussion.

We’ve seen rapid melting in the Arctic, but not in the Antarctic. Is this something that has concerned climate scientists?

It’s sort of a paradox. The paradox of why the Antarctic isn’t melting and the Arctic is has gotten a lot of attention, and it’s become one of the skeptics’ arguments. The climate models have generally matched the observations, so scientists have said that’s what the climate models predict, and people haven’t been too bothered by it. But trying to understand exactly what has been going on has not been intuitive. It’s not like there’s been a big debate in the climate community, or a lot of worry about this, because observations have agreed with the models. But that didn’t really explain anything. So in this paper we’ve tried to dig in and find out what really has been going on.

What did you find?

The answer is tied up in a combination of natural variability and global warming. But the most important part of the story is it’s not so much the direct heating from above, but how the precipitation modulates the heating both from below and above. The explanation we’ve found doesn’t translate into a simple sound bite.

So give me a non-sound bite answer.

Sea ice can melt from both above and below, either heating from the ocean below or the atmosphere above. In the case of the Arctic most of the melting is driven from the warmer atmosphere above. In the Antarctic most of the melting has been driven from the ocean below. What our study has identified is that there’s been increased precipitation over the last few decades that has freshened the upper ocean, which makes it more stable so the heat below doesn’t make it up to the sea ice to melt it.

Freshens the upper ocean?

It decreases the saltiness. When you have a fresh layer on top that’s less dense it acts as a barrier to prevent the mixing of warmer water from below. It insulates the ice to some extent. We’ve also seen a big role of natural variability, over the past 30 years or so the dominant climate signal has been from the Antarctic Oscillation rather than from global warming. The net effect of all this has been an increase in precipitation, mostly snow. This diminishes the melting both from below and above. It stops the melting from above because snow has a higher albedo and reflects more sunlight.

At some point does this result in a net loss of ice rather than gains?

What happens in the 21st century projections is that the global warming signal begins to dominate. We still have the freshening of the upper ocean, but the upper ocean is getting warmer because of a warmer atmosphere. And the precipitation starts to fall more as rain than snow. Rain falling on ice speeds the melting from above.

PNAS

Three different models show Antarctic ice beginning to recede around 2060.

Aside from the new paper, you’ve certainly had an interesting year as a climate scientist.

Oh my gosh, I stepped into it with that little essay I put out. I figured, in for a penny in for a pound.

You have been among the most outspoken scientists in the wake of the Climategate e-mails. Most sought to downplay their significance. You took a position that this was a teachable moment for climate science. Has you gotten any traction on this?

The thing that’s getting traction, the most important thing, is the need for transparency, to get the methods out there and the data out there. There’s a real public demand for accountability on this subject and it’s just plain good science. With the World Wide Web it’s just easy to do. The whole transparency thing, everyone agrees on that, and it’s slowly happening. The other thing I’m seeing is that two of the professional societies, the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union, are talking about ensuring that skeptical papers get through if they’re of the right quality. Some people were getting their papers rejected because they disagreed with the IPCC. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. Papers were getting rejected for the wrong reason. It’s good that professional societies are taking this seriously. Those are some good things that have happened in the science community.

What about on the policy side?

On the policy side of it everything seems to have fallen apart. A year ago it seems like we were on track for something to happen, but everything’s fallen apart for a whole host of reasons. It’s not like Climategate caused all that. There were a whole bunch of political and economic issues, like the developed world versus developing countries. Frankly I think this is a good thing that it’s fallen apart in the short term so everyone can sit back and reflect a little bit more on what we should be doing — to try and really understand where our common interests lie and maybe get away from the UN Model and understand the unintended consequences of some of the policies people are talking about. There’s some no-brainer things that people can be doing, and I hope some of this can get started. But in terms of these big, huge far-reaching policies … the work that needs to be done is really in the economic and political arena to figure out what actually makes sense to do.

Solutions that make sense to a broad range of interests?

Exactly. Otherwise it’s just not going to happen.

Have the positions you’ve taken affected your standing in the climate science community?

I have no idea. I haven’t had any obvious ostracism. A few people who were directly involved in Climategate e-mailed me and weren’t particularly happy about it. But I’ve gotten encouragement from other people, and other people don’t seem to be particularly aware of it. I’ve gotten a fair amount of positive feedback but there’s probably a lot going on out there among people who don’t directly communicate with me. I think it’s fair to say it’s pretty unpopular in certain circles.

Oh yes. Those guys are directly involved in Climategate so that’s not a huge surprise. (note: Joe Romm, of Climate Progress, was not directly involved in Climategate as his private e-mails were not published. Gavin Schmidt, of RealClimate, points out that he was the victim of a crime and not guilty of anything.)

Do you think those kinds of sites are helpful in trying to build public confidence in climate scientists?

That’s a tough one. Real Climate, I think they’ve damaged their brand. They started out doing something that people liked, but they’ve been too partisan in a scientific way. Their moderation hasn’t been good. There was a lot of rudeness toward me on one thread that was actually encouraged by the moderators. I don’t think that has served them well.

Why have you been so conversant with some of the so-called skeptical sites, sites that are certainly outside mainstream climate science?

One of the other positives that I think has come out of Climategate is a realization of what other bloggers like (Steve) McIntyre (of Climate Audit) are actually up to. This isn’t a Merchants of Doubt, oil-company-funded effort. It’s a grassroots effort. These are people who are interested, they want to see accountability. They have a certain amount of expertise and they want to play around with climate data. There’s no particularly evil motives behind all this.

We really don’t understand the potential or impact the blogosphere is having. I think it’s big and growing. The sites that are growing in popularity are Watts Up With That, which really have huge traffic. I think there’s a real interest in the subject. I think there’s a hunger for information. I think there’s a huge potential here for public education. People say it’s polarizing, and sure, you have Climate Progress and Climate Depot on the two extremes, but in the middle you’ve got all these lukewarmer blogs springing up. So I can also see a depolarizing effect. There seems to be a lot more stuff building up in the middle right now. With the IPCC, and the expectation that scientists hew to the party line, it was getting pretty evangelical. When I speak up about maybe there’s more uncertainty, some people regard that as heresy. That’s not a good thing for either science or policy. We’ve got to lose that.

Bravo to Dr. Curry, certainly much more honesty and openness than I would have expected given her past science history on the issue. She has improved her scientific credentials in my eyes, especially on her view of RC and the partisans that run that sorry excuse for a blog. I am glad there are more scientists than myself who see them as they really are, thanks.

I don’t think I can imagine the difficulty in getting a degree in a Climatology related science. It would be like getting a degree in politics where the professor is a right wing talk show host. Not only are the radical talk show host types biased, they also believe they’re correct 100% of the time — anyone pointing out flaws in their arguments are obviously heretics.

The fact that some of the historically AGW skeptics who post to this blog seem to be trying to keep an open mind to some small extent here is encouraging. The complexity of how all the inputs affect climate will forever give those who don’t want to acknowledge any credence to human input leeway to continue to find fault but all that is needed for some meaningful action to be taken is for a consensus of those with a stake in the outcome to be reached. One big obstacle however to reaching that consensus is the ever growing human population all of which is understandably looking to improve their standard of living which means no end to the growing stress on available resources and the environment. With no realistic place for any meaningful portion of this population to move elsewhere if we don’t find ways to deal with the problems we face it’s for certain that natural forces including those responding to our own efforts will handle that job for us. To a large extent the quality of our future existence really is in our own hands.

We really don’t understand the potential or impact the blogosphere is having.

With the IPCC, and the expectation that scientists hew to the party line, it was getting pretty evangelical.

While we twitter on about this, John Bolton, a political mouthpiece for some real nuts, is saying that Israel has just “eight days” to launch a military strike to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The politics of war is the limiting factor here, not politics of climate.

Walt Stone Regrettably, this is not how it works with turncoats and technically competent and honest professionals, “Dr. Curry is a brave soul and deserves praise. Or burned at the stake. Depending, of course, on which side of the discussion you’re on.”

I can’t speak for Dr. Curry, but one of the things that’s true with WUWT is that they show their work. Their opposition to the AGW theory is tangential to that (and driven by the AGW tendency to hide their work).

And, yeah, the big issue is not whether we’re warming — we almost have to be, given that we’re only 200 years removed from a Little Ice Age — it’s how much and why. A lot of the debate right now is centered on data inputs, and comparative historical data.

I’m of the opinion that the pre-satellite data is garbage, and the comparative historical data isn’t settled. At this point, you can’t prove to me that the disease is worse than the proposed cure.

Finally, remember the Instamantra: I’ll believe it’s a crisis when they start acting like there’s a crisis.

Some people were getting their papers rejected because they disagreed with the IPCC.

Interesting, because it appears to be a straightforward accusation of scientific fraud. Would Dr Curry kindly elaborate on this? Are there papers out there that were rejected because of their conclusions, and not because of scientific flaws in the work?

You seem to make a habit of speaking in very vague generalities and, as another has pointed out, even make thinly veiled accusations of scientific fraud without actually substantiating these claims. I don’t understand playing the role of victim or martyr for whatever cause it is you seem to have taken up (the false middle, perhaps?) as you nonchalantly make accusations and then are subsequently asked to back up the claims. When you don’t, you are naturally berated by the very people you seem to be accusing of wrongdoing. This is a pattern I have seen develop over the past several weeks of watching you go about commenting on various blogs and conducting interviews. I recall quite well the RC thread which you refer to. In case your memory is short, your first comments there were not of the “I’m just here to discuss things objectively” variety. You started out by telling Tamino that his “review” had “numerous factual errors and misrepresentations…” You failed to point out specifics when given ample opportunity. It only got worse from there and I greatly encourage others to find it and read it to judge for themselves, as you have greatly misrepresented the tone which YOU set.

On a presonal note, I also find comments about moderation policies on various blogs to be tedious and essentially vacuous. It is a silly conversation to have and inevitably you end up looking foolish, for example you take RC to task based on your recent experience, yet you praise WUWT, a site run by a man who makes an effort to out anyone he disagrees with and even though they wish to remain anonymous (and refers to his comments policy which was specifically written to disengage actual scientists), blocks many dissenting opinions for infractions committed on a daily basis by hundreds of commenters he (apparently) agrees with, actually held up a highly insulting post (calling those who accept AGW “cockroaches”) as a new featured comment of the week, hosted several guest posts by a man who is attempting to sue and silence multiple scientists and their universities, and so on. Perhaps it’s best not to comment on moderation policies, lest you risk looking incredibly naive or perhaps substantially biased. I mean does it not at all concern you that you are frowning upon one site for allowing and “encouraging” (another unsubstantiated claim) people to insult you, yet you are holding up another site as a good example that, and I suggest anyone who wants to verify to visit now, has commenters that consistently call for the dismissal, dismantling, jailing, and public berating of scientists and scientific organizations such as NASA?

I also have to ask how you gauge popularity and the reasons something is popular? I could point out the popularity of many television programs, but I doubt they are signs of a thirst for knowledge. How do you come to the conclusion that the popularity of WUWT is an indication of this great desire of the people to gain knowledge? I have visited there many times (adding to that popularity) and can honestly say I have not so much as gained an ounce of education for doing so. I do think it serves a purpose, as I do learn when posts from Mr. Goddard appear and are subsequently shown to be completely wrong by people elsewhere. So, I suppose in a way I agree tht people can learn from that site. It’s much the same way I learn here at work how to use proper safety procedures-I am forced to watch videos of how NOT to do things.

As I said, I have visited WUWT many times. I also visit Climate Progress, RC, Climate Audit, Skeptical Science, Rabbett Run, Open Mind, Greenfrye, Deep Climate, Stoat, Climate Science, Jo Nova, The Blackboard, the IPCC reports and several other lesser known places. I also try to read what I can of papers themselves, but have a pretty limited understanding most times of what I am reading. I have become acquaintances with several scientists in a variety of fields who can help me understand when I have questions. What I have thus far learned comes from a variety of places.

— but of course I have engaged in the life-long study of the Natural Sciences, the Social and Historical Sciences, the Philosophical Sciences and the Liberal Arts.

Rabbet himself was very polite and very helpful to me via an exchange of comments at an A&M Scientist’s blog a couple of years back, when I undertook to catch up with the Science base directly involved in climate research so that I could study and assess the IPCC’s work with due diligence. He named a list of disciplines as well as texts that were crucial to my personal effort to grasp the Science base.

. . . and of course when Dr. Curry says the Arctic continues to melt, she is of course not accounting for the fact that for the last three years there has been more ice at the summer minimum point than in each year before it. Or that the high Arctic is experiencing record cold temperatures.

So in Climate Science, increase in ice means less ice.

Is there any wonder many people doubt the IPCC Party line and think of what is going on as Climate Scientology?

So if we’re only talking of a loss of 2×10^5 sq km, over a century (with the usual caveats about such long-term forecasts), why is Antarctic sea ice considered a critical issue? And why does the PNAS anomaly graph show so little variability, relative to the historical record cited above?

I have the greatest respect for Judith Curry. She has recognised that there is something rotten, metaphorically, in the State of Denmark. She recognises that there exists a very substantial community of scientifically literate sceptical peers outwith the climate research establishment. They have no motive either way other than intense irritation at advocacy spin. They no longer trust the establishment. This mistrust, unfortunately, is growing and most likely permanent. She therefore sees that the only solution is the engage fully and freely with serious sceptics. And she is right. But it is a hard road, necessitating a return to greater understanding of natural processes, and acceptance that they, rather than we, ultimately control the future climate, up or down.

In the “olden days” of the blogosphere, Judith and I exchanged a number of hurricane-related comments at Climate Audit. I doubt that we ever fully agreed with each other on anything, but the exchange may have caused us both to rethink certain points.

She doesn’t seem to understand that it’s papers like this ^, full of unmitigated rubbish, that are the root cause of the problem in the first place. If she wants to do us all a favour, she should stop writing them.

Your explanation is no explanation, as to why the sea ice in Antarctica has been on the increase. Then again your premise about global warming is incorrect, so how could you possibly predict anything correctly.

Thanks for your sincere explanation of why you support powersats over existing near-term, viable solar & wind energy technologies. We too (two?) support the development of longer-term energy solutions; however, CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures won’t wait until powersats & nuclear fusion are primed for mass production. Nevertheless & without a doubt, some of those rectennas you mentioned could find good use right here, right now.

Apparently, there are some here who would prefer we find another place to carry on our intelligent discussion about anthropogenic climate change & clean energy solutions.

Can’t for the life of us, though, comprehend why the moderating powers that be squelched the life out of our Phytoplankton bloom! Even a repentant Judith Curry might question such a global, indiscriminate lockdown of the entire ballpark vs. ejecting some bad business-as-usual players. And it sure as hell won’t slow the contagion.

“Can’t for the life of us, though, comprehend why the moderating powers that be squelched the life out of our Phytoplankton bloom!”

I would be willing to bet that it is because (1) Eric has a life outside of moderating comments {or at least wishes to have one}, (2) the comments had become repetitious at best {witness ttyler5′s responses}, and (3) the ratio of heat to light was becoming unfavorable.

While we’re all waiting around for powersats & fusion reactors to materialize, it appears we’re due to complete another ~29 GW of renewable energy by ~XMAS 2011 to double what we had installed during the previous 3 decades thru 2008. That’s comparable to building another couple of dozen or so nukes in only 3 years at a fraction of the price. Talk about goosing America into the 21st Century.

And with 12 GW of renewable energy manufacturing capacity per year by 1/1/2012, it shouldn’t be too long before that estimated 16.7 million or 14% of American households serviced by renewable energy sources becomes 28%, then 56%, then who knows.

Specifically, the goals are to double renewable energy capacity from the 28.8 gigawatts (GW) of solar, wind, and geothermal generation that had been installed in the U.S. as of the end of 2008 to 57.6 GW by the end of 2011 — enough to power 16.7 million homes — and to double renewable energy manufacturing capacity from an annual output of 6 GW of renewable equipment (such as wind turbines and solar panels) at the end of 2008 to 12 GW by the end of 2011.